CRM-M/27967/2026 of DHEERAJ KATARIA Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 9 July 2026

REEMA SAINI

CRM-M-27967 of 2026(O&M) 29.08.2024 was executed. Rs. 3,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and subsequently, complainant paid another Rs.5,00,000/- on 09.09.2025 and Rs. 15,00,000/- on 10.09.2025 when sale deed was executed by Dheeraj Kataria as Ashok Kumar. Later, Dheeraj Kumar impersonating as Special Power of Attorney of Ms. Ashok Latta wife of Harkrishan Lal, executed agreement to sell dated 18.12.2024 in favour of complainant in respect of another property of village Kupp Kala for total sale consideration of Rs. 70,50,000/- and received Rs.25,00,000/- as earnest money. The proposed date of sale deed was 17.06.2025. Balwinder Singh and Dheeraj Kataria (Ashok Kumar) also received Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash from the complainant. Later, complainant learnt that person impersonating as Ashok Kumar was infact Dheeraj Kataria. Balwinder Singh and petitioner-Dheeraj Kataria (Ashok Kumar) executed a registered sale deed, an agreement to sell fraudulently, thus, cheating the complainant of Rs. 49 lacs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR No. 164 dated 14.11.2025, under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) and 61 (2) BNS, was registered against the petitioner, on complaint of Ashok Kumar regarding execution of sale deed dated 10.09.2024 and FIR in the present case was registered on the same set of allegations. Petitioner was on bail in the previous case. Investigation of the case was complete. Petitioner was in custody w.e.f. 23.01.2026. Charges were yet to be framed, therefore, petitioner deserved to be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned State counsel has filed status report in the form of affidavit of Inderpal Chouhan, PPS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub- Division Ahmedgarh, District Malerkotla and has opposed the prayer for REEMA SAINI

CRM-M-27967 of 2026(O&M) regular bail on the ground that there were two other FIRs registered against the petitioner. He was master mind of the crime wherein he played principal role to cheat the complainant of Rs.49 lacs by impersonation, fabrication of the documents. Petitioner, therefore, did not deserve the concession of bail in view of gravity of offence.

5. In FIR No. 164 dated 04.11.2025 lodged on statement of Ashok Kumar son of Amar Nath, regarding fraudulent sale of the property by the petitioner in favour of Rakesh Kumar Mehta, petitioner has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.01.2026. Although, there is another transaction of fraudulent execution of agreement to sell dated 29.08.2024 alleged in the FIR, the question whether petitioner can be prosecuted twice for alleged forgery of sale deed dated 10.09.2024, would be moot point during the trial. Case is based on documentary evidence. Truth of the allegations can be determined only on conclusion of trial. Petitioner is in custody w.e.f. 23.01.2026. Investigation of the case is complete and challan has since been presented in the Court. Case is triable by Court of Magistrate. Trial to conclude is likely to take time. Involvement of petitioner in two other cases cannot, alone be a ground to decline bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits, petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL)

JUDGE 09.07.2026 reema Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

REEMA SAINI